Teen's Interaction With Transgender Woman in YMCA Locker Room Sparks Heated Debate

[SilverBear]

Yeah, Kind of like the woman in the row vs wade case. Lie lie lie.

Your mistake of course is that everyone is so concerned them and their gender confusion. They are not.

Well this thread is about a 17 year old who was "concerned" enough to blatantly lie about a woman in the locker room and how continues to lie despite her false claims being exposed. It is also about the millions of people who are championing and defending her this girl despite the fact they know her claims are not true. That sounds pretty concerned to me.

They would not even care if it was not constantly shoved at them and their children. Is self centered and narcissistic to think everyone is sitting around 24/7 thinking about them, talking about them, discussing their issues and trying to figure out ways to "hate" them and hurt them.

If you want self centered and narcissistic one need look no further than at people who claim that a minority is targeting children and is working in an organized fashion to hurt children

It is not about hate.

if this sort of campaign was directed at any other minority it would be called hate and rightly so.

It is about living free from other peoples obsessions and preferences.

I'm sure Chrisynne Wood wishes to be free of other peoples obsessions.

They are not important enough to waste the time and energy to work up any kind of emotion much less hate. Not everything is motivated by hate. People have their own lives, jobs, families, churches, and friends. They just don't figure into our lives.

So why defend people who lie about them?

Just don't push it at our kids.

exactly how was Chrisynne Wood pushing anything on kids?

I am trying to be mean... but these folks would enjoy their lives much more if they got rid of the notion that they are the center of the universe and that it all revolves around them and their identity issues. It does not. Nobody hates them. That is silly. If they can learn to accept themselves and not care about what other people think... it would go much better for them.
Just don't force it at our kids.
Simple.

you just broke the irony meter.

 

[RileyG]

Have three facilities.
Girls, Boys, Trans.
Problem solved.

Agreed. Biological men do not belong in the woman's restroom, biological women do not belong in a men's restroom. Period.

 

[RileyG]

Christynne Wood is a man. He has no business being in a woman's restroom. Period. What about those who do not accept transgender ideology? Should it be shoved down our throats because it's the "new normal"?

 

[Pommer]

Agreed. Biological men do not belong in the woman's restroom, biological women do not belong in a men's restroom. Period.

But by having three,
“Boys
Girls
Trans”
we’d be putting biological males in with biological females, there’s FTM AND MTF transfolk.

 

[Neogaia777]

But by having three,
“Boys
Girls
Trans”
we’d be putting biological males in with biological females, there’s FTM AND MTF transfolk.

The third restroom could be for all and/or both/neither, etc, or those who really don't care about it either way, and want combined or shared restrooms for everyone, etc, and the other two can be for those who do care about it, problem solved.

God Bless!

 

[Desk trauma]

The third restroom could be for all and/or both/neither, etc, or those who really don't care about it either way, and want combined or shared restrooms for everyone, etc, and the other two can be for those who do care about it, problem solved.

God Bless!

I am sure Buck Angel would be well received in the women's locker room.

 

[Neogaia777]

The third restroom could be for all and/or both/neither, etc, or those who really don't care about it either way, and want combined or shared restrooms for everyone, etc, and the other two can be for those who do care about it, problem solved.

God Bless!

Eventually, we might get to the point when maybe everyone wants to start using the third restroom/dressroom/lockeroom, and doesn't care about the other two, but, until then, we should respect everyone, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Pommer]

The third restroom could be for all and/or both/neither, etc, or those who really don't care about it either way, and want combined or shared restrooms for everyone, etc, and the other two can be for those who do care about it, problem solved.

God Bless!

Just because you, yourself, are locked into a world where there are “men” “women” and “everything else” it does not follow that everyone is also locked into this “reality”.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just because you, yourself, are locked into a world where there are “men” “women” and “everything else” it does not follow that everyone is also locked into this “reality”.

They don't have to be, but we do all have to learn how to all respect one another, and let all the "changes" come naturally, etc.

Right now a third restroom, or changeroom, or "whatever", is appropriate for all of those who wish to completely abolish all of those things in the meantime, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Pommer]

They don't have to be, but we do all have to learn how to all respect one another, and let all the "changes" come naturally, etc.

Right now a third restroom, or changeroom, or "whatever", is appropriate for all of those who wish to completely abolish all of those things in the meantime, etc.

God Bless!

Or we could just have the two different restrooms and mind our own business?

 

[Neogaia777]

Or we could just have the two different restrooms and mind our own business?

A person is allowed to undress or get naked in a restroom, which is why I also mentioned changerooms, or lockerooms, or shower or bathrooms, etc, and people (or children/teenagers, etc) who don't want to see the opposite of sexes naked parts, etc, "rights", etc, need to be respected for right now also, etc, because they still have rights right now as well, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SilverBear]

Christynne Wood is a man.

no, she isn't. Denying reality won't change that.

He has no business being in a woman's restroom. Period. What about those who do not accept transgender ideology?

This thread suggests that those with prejudices lie and support those who tell lies about transgendered individuals.


Do you support blatant lies the 17 year old girl in the OP told?

Should it be shoved down our throats because it's the "new normal"?

what exactly is being shoved down your throat?

 

[SilverBear]

Eventually, we might get to the point when maybe everyone wants to start using the third restroom/dressroom/lockeroom, and doesn't care about the other two, but, until then, we should respect everyone, etc...

God Bless!

Respect people who are different??? Shame on you!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am sure Buck Angel would be well received in the women's locker room.

The "not at all convincing" <-> "you'd never know unless someone told you" spectrum is one of the things that makes this topic tricky. And admittedly, I don't know what the right answer is on that.

It's an aspect that we all know to be a reality - and that people with a moderation position on the topic are willing to acknowledge, but that none of the absolutist types on either side of the debate wants to touch with a 10-foot-pole because it's inconvenient.

Absolutists on the "against" side don't want to acknowledge that there's some very passable trans folks out there, because that means they'd have to confront the fact that Blaire White or Janet Mock changing in front of their sons in the Men's facility would make them just as uncomfortable as the person in this article changing in the Women's room.

Absolutists on the "for" side don't even want to acknowledge the concept of passable, because acknowledging as much would jeopardize their status as a "true ally" among their peers. In fact, a few may even have some strongly worded replies to me simply for acknowledging the reality that in terms of "looking like a woman", Janet Mock does, and the person in this news story doesn't. (likely followed by the Philosophy 101 semantic game of asking me to define "chair" that includes all things that are chairs, and excluding all things that aren't)

 

[Neogaia777]

The "not at all convincing" <-> "you'd never know unless someone told you" spectrum is one of the things that makes this topic tricky. And admittedly, I don't know what the right answer is on that.

It's an aspect that we all know to be a reality - and that people with a moderation position on the topic are willing to acknowledge, but that none of the absolutist types on either side of the debate wants to touch with a 10-foot-pole because it's inconvenient.

Absolutists on the "against" side don't want to acknowledge that there's some very passable trans folks out there, because that means they'd have to confront the fact that Blaire White or Janet Mock changing in front of their sons in the Men's facility would make them just as uncomfortable as the person in this article changing in the Women's room.

Absolutists on the "for" side don't even want to acknowledge the concept of passable, because acknowledging as much would jeopardize their status as a "true ally" among their peers. In fact, a few may even have some strongly worded replies to me simply for acknowledging the reality that in terms of "looking like a woman", Janet Mock does, and the person in this news story doesn't. (likely followed by the Philosophy 101 semantic game of asking me to define "chair" that includes all things that are chairs, and excluding all things that aren't)

But whether they are passable or not externally, sure they could still theoretically enter one restroom or the other, etc, but rules are rules, and if they still have the parts in those restrooms, and another person gets to see their parts there, then they are breaking the law, and should be prosecuted or face some kind of consequences for it, especially if there is a third restroom available, etc.

Now if say, they look like a man but have women's parts, etc, then they could use either the women's restroom, or the third restroom, and vice-versa, and no one should be allowed to question them on it, but if they know they have the opposite parts of the restroom they are using, and don't want to use the third one, then they need to know that they are doing it at their own risk in those cases, etc, but no one should be hounding anyone, or trying to set anyone up on purpose just to try and cause a stir also, etc, because if something like that happens, then there might need to be some exceptions that might need to be made on a case by case basis, etc.

And anyone found to be hounding, or questioning inappropriately, might need to face some kind of consequences as well, but all or any of that/this (these last parts, etc), is a decision to be made by the courts, and on an individual case by case basis, and hopefully they can figure out what is true and fair and just, and act accordingly, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Desk trauma]

The "not at all convincing" <-> "you'd never know unless someone told you" spectrum is one of the things that makes this topic tricky. And admittedly, I don't know what the right answer is on that.

It's an aspect that we all know to be a reality - and that people with a moderation position on the topic are willing to acknowledge, but that none of the absolutist types on either side of the debate wants to touch with a 10-foot-pole because it's inconvenient.

Absolutists on the "against" side don't want to acknowledge that there's some very passable trans folks out there, because that means they'd have to confront the fact that Blaire White or Janet Mock changing in front of their sons in the Men's facility would make them just as uncomfortable as the person in this article changing in the Women's room.

Absolutists on the "for" side don't even want to acknowledge the concept of passable, because acknowledging as much would jeopardize their status as a "true ally" among their peers. In fact, a few may even have some strongly worded replies to me simply for acknowledging the reality that in terms of "looking like a woman", Janet Mock does, and the person in this news story doesn't. (likely followed by the Philosophy 101 semantic game of asking me to define "chair" that includes all things that are chairs, and excluding all things that aren't)

I think that the formalization of this into law or written policy has been counter productive. Since we have had clearly gendered bathrooms those who pass but are not biologically their expressed gender used the bathroom they looked like they were supposed to, did their business and got on with things like everyone else.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But whether they are passable or not externally, sure they could still theoretically enter one restroom or the other, etc, but rules are rules, and if they still have the parts in those restrooms, and another person gets to see their parts there, then they are breaking the law, and should be prosecuted or face some kind of consequences for it, especially if there is a third restroom available, etc.

Now if say, they look like a man but have women's parts, etc, then they could use either the women's restroom, or the third restroom, and vice-versa, and no one should be allowed to question them on it, but if they know they have the opposite parts of the restroom they are using, and don't want to use the third one, then they need to know that they are doing it at their own risk in those cases, etc, but no one should be hounding anyone, or trying to set anyone up on purpose just to try and cause a stir also, etc, because if something like that happens, then there might need to be some exceptions that might need to be made on a case by case basis, etc.

God Bless!

Even then, if you have a place with only two restrooms/changing rooms, and someone has some parts that are associated with both, we're still left with the same quandary.

For instance, Blaire White

Blaire has "parts" that are associated with both genders. Either some girls are seeing a penis, or some boys are seeing breasts...in both scenarios, the absolutists on the "against" side are going to have a problem with it.

On the flip side, the absolutists on the "for" side who act appalled that someone would be put off by someone with chest hair and a 5 o'clock shadow in the Women's room, isn't a reasonable position either. We have multiple generations of women and girls who were raised in an environment where it's abnormal to see someone who looks like a dude in their changing facility, and it's not reasonable to expect them to be "cool with it, effective immediately" just because some social activists want to advance, what they see as social progress, at a rate much faster than it's organic pace.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that the formalization of this into law or written policy has been counter productive. Since we have had clearly gendered bathrooms those who pass but are not biologically their expressed gender used the bathroom they looked like they were supposed to, did their business and got on with things like everyone else.

I would agree with that.

Had this never become a national discussion, people like Buck Angel, Blaire White, Shawn Stinson, Janet Mock, etc... would've used the bathrooms they identified with, nobody would've been the wiser, and that would've been the end of it.

However, the caveats:

1) Bathroom and gym showering/changing facilities are different in that regard. In bathrooms, nobody's really getting a look a certain parts. Blaire could walk into a women's bathroom stall, and nobody would know she's trans. Little harder to hide that in shower room.

2) I can sympathize a bit with the scenario described by the "for" side. Which is, despite being in identical circumstances, due to genetics, someone like Janet Mock can go into a women's bathroom without raising any eyebrows, a person like the one in this story cannot. ...and genetics are outside one's control. If you were born male, and have the genetics for having really broad shoulders and fast growing facial and body hair, it's going to be harder to "pass" compared to a person who's more petite.

 

[Neogaia777]

Even then, if you have a place with only two restrooms/changing rooms, and someone has some parts that are associated with both, we're still left with the same quandary.

For instance, Blaire White
View attachment 327204

Blaire has "parts" that are associated with both genders. Either some girls are seeing a penis, or some boys are seeing breasts...in both scenarios, the absolutists on the "against" side are going to have a problem with it.

On the flip side, the absolutists on the "for" side who act appalled that someone would be put off by someone with chest hair and a 5 o'clock shadow in the Women's room, isn't a reasonable position either. We have multiple generations of women and girls who were raised in an environment where it's abnormal to see someone who looks like a dude in their changing facility, and it's not reasonable to expect them to be "cool with it, effective immediately" just because some social activists want to advance, what they see as social progress, at a rate much faster than it's organic pace.

There should be third restrooms, everywhere, first of all, wherever they are not a single restroom that locks maybe, because that might be an exception, etc...

And whatever parts they have, breasts, penis, vagina, etc, if anyone in an opposite restroom gets to see those parts naked, and it's not because someone is being set-up or whatever, etc, then the law should be the law, with very few exceptions, etc, and in the case of those having both parts, or that are in the process of a change, etc, if there is a risk of others seeing those parts naked, and again, it's not because they are being set-up, or is not being done on purpose, etc, then they should use the third restroom, regardless, otherwise they need to know that legally, they could be possibly taking a risk, etc.

And there can't be any kind of persecution, of anyone, because of any of this, etc, otherwise the one doing the persecuting, might need to face some legal consequences, etc.

This is probably one of the only ways we are all going to be able to get along on these issues, as the rights of all need to be respected, etc...

A parent might have to explain to their children that what looks like a man entering their restroom is actually a woman biologically, and vice-versa, but that is something where they will just have to make a concession, and just have to deal with, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Pommer]

There should be third restrooms, everywhere, first of all, wherever they are not a single restroom that locks maybe, because that might be an exception, etc...

And whatever parts they have, breasts, penis, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], etc, if anyone in an opposite restroom gets to see those parts naked, and it's not because someone is being set-up or whatever, etc, then the law should be the law, with very few exceptions, etc, and in the case of those having both parts, or that are in the process of a change, etc, if there is a risk of others seeing those parts naked, and again, it's not because they are being set-up, or is not being done on purpose, etc, then they should use the third restroom, regardless, otherwise they need to know that legally, they could be possibly taking a risk, etc.

And there can't be any kind of persecution, of anyone, because of any of this, etc, otherwise the one doing the persecuting, might need to face some legal consequences, etc.

This is probably one of the only ways we are all going to be able to get along on these issues, as the rights of all need to be respected, etc...

A parent might have to explain to their children that what looks like a man entering their restroom is actually a woman biologically, and vice-versa, but that is something where they will just have to make a concession, and just have to deal with, etc.

God Bless!

I’m curious, what tripped the “obscenity filter”?